Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If p fails, p is false — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The formula (p → q) ∨ p is classically valid because if p is false, conditionals with false antecedents are vacuously true

    If p fails, p is false

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    In classical logic, a conditional with a false antecedent is trueThe formula (p → q) ∨ p is classically valid because if p is false, conditionals...Therefore (p → q) holds whenever p is false, making (p → q) ∨ p a tautology

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Suppose the proposition that p is false89%K(p ∧ ¬Kp) is false84%When it is not a fact that p, condition (a) fails.83%If 'Actually p' is true, then it is necessary that 'Actually p' is tru...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logic-substructural
    View source passageHide passage
    shows that either \(p \rightarrow q\) or \(p\) must hold. This is classically valid (if \(p\) fails, \(p\) is false, and conditionals with false antecedents are true), but invalid in intuitionistic logic. The difference between classical and intuitionistic logic, then, can be understood formally as a difference between the kinds of structural rules permitted, and the kinds of structures appropriate to use in the analysis of logical consequence.

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective